Delhi District Court
State vs Chijoke Smith Okpe Etc. on 3 July, 2012
1
IN THE COURT OF MS. ANJU BAJAJ CHANDNA
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE/SPECIAL JUDGE NDPS
(NORTH) DELHI
S.C. NO : 9/10
STATE
versus
1. Chijoke Smith Okpe,
S/o Mr. Okpe,
R/o 11, Aka, Onish,
Annbera, Nigeria.
2. Akhil Dass,
S/o Masih Dass,
R/o C556, Gali No12,
Adarsh Nagar, Delhi.
3. Marina,
D/o Thalinruma,
R/o D75, Janak Puri West,
Delhi.
FIR No. : 73/10
Offence U/S : 25 A NDPS Act., 1985
read with section 29 NDPS Act
Police Station : Narcotics Cell
DATE OF INSTITUTION: 21.07.2010
JUDGMENT RESERVED ON: 28.05.2012
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 11.06.2012
JUDGMENT
1. All the three accused namely, Chijoke Smith Okpe S/o Mr. Okpe, Akhil Dass S/o Masih Dass and Marina D/o S.C.No. 9/10 Page 1 of 23 pages State Vs Chijoke Smith Okpe etc. 2 Thalinruma have been sent to face trial under NDPS Act for having entered into criminal conspiracy for supply of controlled substance (ephedrine) and consequent to that accused Chijoke Smith and Akhil Dass were found exchanging the same with conscious possession of ephedrine as punishable u/s 25A read with section 29 NDPS Act.
2. The prosecution case is that on 25.05.2010, a secret information was received by SI Satyawan of Narcotics Cell through secret informer to the effect that one Nigerian national namely, Smith resident of Madhya Pradesh, who is involved with one Asif in bringing ephedrine from Madhya Pradesh and further sends to South Africa through Delhi, would be coming with his girl friend, with heavy quantity of ephedrine in order to supply the same and he can be apprehended at the gate of St. Stephen's Hospital. The secret information was reduced into writing and also transmitted to the senior officers and on their directions the raiding party was constituted consisting of HC Ramesh, W/HC Rama, Ct. Jogender, Ct. Sohan Pal and the raiding party proceeded to the spot alongwith informer. The raiding party reached the spot at about 3.20 p.m. and took positions. At 3.35 p.m., accused Chijoke Smith, Nigerian national was seen coming carrying blue bag on his right shoulder and one black bag in his left hand and was accompanied by a North Eastern girl. Both of them stood near the main gate and about 23 minutes thereafter another boy namely Akhil Dass (third accused) came from Tis Hazari side and started conversing with Chijoke S.C.No. 9/10 Page 2 of 23 pages State Vs Chijoke Smith Okpe etc. 3 Smith. Accused Chijoke Smith then handed over blue bag to Akhil Dass, who hung the bag on his left shoulder and when all the three started moving back, they were apprehended by the raiding party. The secret information was revealed to the three accused and notice u/s 50 NDPS Act was served upon each of them to which they recorded their refusal. Firstly, the black colour bag carried by Smith was opened and checked and it was found containing shiny powder which on testing with field testing kit came out to be ephedrine. On weighing, the substance was found 6 kg out of which 2 samples of 25 grams each were drawn and thereafter the samples as well as main contraband were sealed into pulandas. FSL form was filled up and the contraband was seized. Then the blue bag carried by accused Akhil Dass was checked and it was also found having ephedrine weighing about 3.5 kg. The same procedure of sampling, sealing and seizure was done and also the FSL form was filled up with respect to the second recovery. Thereafter, the search of third accused Marina was taken but nothing incriminating could be recovered from her. The rukka was prepared and was sent for registration of FIR and case property was also sent to SHO, who counter sealed the same and deposited with malkhana. Thereafter, the investigation was taken over by SI Rajbir, who reached the spot and interrogated the accused, prepared the site plan and arrested them in this case. The samples were sent for FSL analysis and on completion of investigation and compliance to other provisions of NDPS Act, the charge sheet was submitted.
S.C.No. 9/10 Page 3 of 23 pages State Vs Chijoke Smith Okpe etc. 4
3. On 24.11.2010, accused Chijoke Smith and Akhil Dass were charged for having committing offences punishable u/s 25A read with section 29 NDPS Act, to which both of them pleaded not guilty and claimed trial, whereas accused Marina was charged for having entered into the criminal conspiracy as punishable u/s 29 NDPS Act, to which she also pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. Prosecution examined 13 witnesses in all to bring home the guilt of accused. The substance of the prosecution evidence is as follows :
5. PW1 W/HC Rama, has been the member of the raiding party and deposed about the receipt of secret information, constitution of raiding party, apprehension of accused and the proceedings conducted at the spot regarding search and seizure of the contraband. She proved notices served upon the accused vide EX PW1/A, B and C, seizure memo EX PW1/D and E and search memo of accused Marina vide EX PW1/F, arrest proceedings of accused EX PW1/G to N and the disclosure statements of the accused. During cross examination, she deposed that secret information was not received in her presence and no written information was shown to her. The site plan was prepared in her presence and she was able to point out her position on the same. The passersby were requested to join the proceedings but none agreed. She denied the suggestion that accused persons had not replied in negative or were not served with the notices. She could not tell the change in the colour of the chemical S.C.No. 9/10 Page 4 of 23 pages State Vs Chijoke Smith Okpe etc. 5 when it was put to field testing kit. She returned the seal after 45 days and samples were already sent to FSL. Investigating officer had made inquiries about the language understood by the accused. She denied the suggestion that signatures of the accused were forcibly taken on blank and semi written documents without disclosing the contents. She denied the suggestions that she had signed various documents at the instance of the investigating officer or that nothing incriminating was recovered from the possession of accused or that accused persons have been falsely implicated by lifting from their respective houses. During crossexamination on behalf of accused Akhil Dass, witness stated that departure entry were not signed by any member of the raiding party. She admitted that spot was thickly populated area. The writing work was done while standing and placing the paper on the bonnet of the vehicle. The weighing was done by keeping the scale on the ground. She denied the suggestion that accused Akhil Dass wanted himself to be searched before gazetted officer. She denied further suggestions that she was not the member of the raiding party or that nothing was recovered from the accused.
6. PW2 HC Joginder Singh, was also the member of the raiding party and deposed about the proceedings conducted with respect to the present case, whereby accused were apprehended and contraband was recovered from them. This witness took rukka, FSL forms, seizure memos and pulandas to police station and got the FIR registered and handed over S.C.No. 9/10 Page 5 of 23 pages State Vs Chijoke Smith Okpe etc. 6 other articles to SHO Crime Branch. The witness further deposed that SHO counter sealed all the pulandas and also mentioned the particulars of the FIR. During cross examination, he stated that secret information was received in his presence. W/HC Rama was also in the room of investigating officer. He denied that no recovery was effected in his presence or that he signed all the papers at police station at the instance of investigating officer. During further crossexamination on behalf of accused Marina and Smith, he stated that written secret information was not shown to him by SI Satyawan. He could not tell his position on the site plan since site plan was not prepared in his presence. PW2 denied that accused Akhil Dass opted for his search before magistrate or gazetted officer. The reply to the notices were written in the handwriting of SI Satyawan. He denied the suggestion that accused persons were forced to sign on blank and semi written documents. PW2 also denied that replies were written by SI Satyawan on his own. He further denied that entries in the register no19 have been fabricated.
7. PW3 HC Karuna Karan Nayar K.K., deputed with ACP office, brought the office record with respect to the receipt of secret information and receipt of special reports u/s 57 NDPS Act vide EX PW3/A to H.
8. PW4 HC Suraj Vir, working as duty officer at PS Crime Branch, recorded the FIR of the present case and proved the same vide EX PW4/A. He also proved various DDs recorded with respect to the present case vide EX PW4/B to E. S.C.No. 9/10 Page 6 of 23 pages State Vs Chijoke Smith Okpe etc. 7
9. PW5 HC Jag Narain, MHC(M) with PS Crime Branch testified about the deposition of case property on 25.05.2010 of this case, sending of sample pulandas to FSL on 07.06.2010 and thereafter receiving of result on 13.07.2010 and proved the relevant record vide EX PW5/A to C. During cross examination, the witness denied that entries have been manipulated or that no case property was received or deposited by him.
10. PW6 Ct. Satpal, took sample pulandas to FSL Rohini on 07.06.2010 and deposited the same with FSL. The pulandas remained intact in his custody. The witness denied during crossexamination that pulandas were tampered with.
11. Inspector Kuldeep Singh, SHO, has also been examined as PW6. He has testified about the receiving of pulandas, FSL form, copies of seizure memos and counter sealing of the same by him and deposition of same with the malkhana. He denied that no caseproperty was counter sealed or deposited by him or that accused persons have been falsely implicated. He admitted that narcotics cell and crime branch are two units and are supervised by different officers. He did not meet Inspector Vivek Pathak. He denied to be deposing falsely.
12. PW7 Inspector Vivek Pathak, was informed about the secret information by SI Satyawan. He met the secret informer and on being satisfied about the information, transmitted the same to the seniors and obtained orders for taking legal action. The raiding party was constituted by SI Satyawan.
S.C.No. 9/10 Page 7 of 23 pages State Vs Chijoke Smith Okpe etc. 8 Accused persons were also produced by SI Rajbir Singh and special reports were also placed before him for forwarding to the seniors. During crossexamination, PW7 denied that no special report u/s 57 NDPS Act was submitted to him. He admitted that there was no communication between him and SHO about this case. He denied that compliance to section 42 NDPS Act has not been made. During crossexamination on behalf of accused Akhil Dass, witness denied that SI Satyawan did not reduce into writing any such information and no proceedings were conducted by him. ACP S.R. Yadav was immediate superior officer and PW7 himself was superior to SI Satyawan. He admitted that Inspector Kuldeep Singh was not immediate superior officer to SI Satyawan. He further denied the suggestion that secret information has been fabricated.
13. PW8 Abdul Rasheed Khan, has been the owner R.K. Lodge at Indore, Madhya Pradesh. According to this witness, a Nigerian man came with his girl friend on 23.05.2010 and booked a room and entry was made in the register. The next day, both of them left. On being inquired by Delhi Police, PW 8 handed over the entry register as well as copy of Icard given by Nigerian national to the police. He proved the relevant entry EX PW8/A and photocopy of ID proof of Nigerian EX PW8/B. He could not identify the said Nigerian and in this way failed to identify accused Smith and Marina in the court. Despite crossexamination by Ld. Addl. P.P., the witness could not admit or deny that accused Smith and Marina came and S.C.No. 9/10 Page 8 of 23 pages State Vs Chijoke Smith Okpe etc. 9 stayed at his lodge. During crossexamination, the witness could not show any documentary proof about the ownership of his lodge. He denied that there is over writing on the entry EX PW8/A. He was not present at the lodge when accused left. He denied that register has been manipulated at the instance of police or that he is deposing falsely. He admitted that he had not seen the accused while coming to the lodge and while leaving the same. He denied that entry of the register is fabricated.
14. PW9 Inderjeet Singh, was approached by accused Smith on 22.05.2010 for hiring a taxi from Delhi to Indore. This witness arranged the taxi for him through his driver Vijay Mohan. He dropped the vehicle Indica bearing no. DL3CAC 7079 to the house of accused with the driver Vijay Mohan who returned on 25.05.2010. The accused made the substantial payment of the tour. The duty slip is EX PW9/A. During crossexamination, the witness could not tell the mobile number of driver Vijay Mohan. The driver had not given any slip showing repairs of the vehicle. The witness has voluntarily stated that repairs were done at Tata Services, Indore on 24.05.2010 and vehicle was repaired same day and no second vehicle was arranged. The witness denied to be deposing falsely.
15. PW10 Dr. Madhulika Sharma, Assistant Director, proved the FSL report of the samples vide EX PW10/A. During crossexamination, she denied that she has given false report on the instructions of investigating officer. She further stated S.C.No. 9/10 Page 9 of 23 pages State Vs Chijoke Smith Okpe etc. 10 that the samples were exclusively ephedrine. She had used gaschromatography to ascertain the nature of substance. The samples were not received without FSL forms. She denied that FSL form was not received but admitted that same is not mentioned on the acknowledgment EX PW5/C.
16. PW11 SI Satyawan, received the secret information about accused Smith and Marina through secret informer. He has given all the details of transmission of secret information, organization of raiding party, apprehension of accused, service of notices u/s 50 NDPS Act and thereafter search, sampling and seizure proceedings. He proved departure entry EX PW11/A, rukka EX PW11/B besides proving all other memos prepared in this case. During crossexamination on behalf of accused Smith and Marina, the witness stated that when secret informer came to him, no one else was present in his room. He reduced the information into writing vide EX PW3/A. He admitted that spot is a thorough fare and there are temporary shops in front of gate of hospital. He did not request any shopkeeper to join the raiding party. The witness did not inform the local police regarding secret information nor he conducted any investigation qua the search of accused Asif. The witness thereafter was not crossexamined despite opportunities afforded.
17. PW12 ASI Rajbir Singh, took over investigation of the case on registration of FIR and left for the spot. SI Satyawan briefed him about the case and handed over the documents. PW12 prepared site plan, recorded statements of witnesses S.C.No. 9/10 Page 10 of 23 pages State Vs Chijoke Smith Okpe etc. 11 and interrogated the accused persons and conducted their arrest proceedings. He produced accused persons before Inspector Vivek Pathak and informed the friends/relatives of the accused about their arrest. He also prepared special report EX PW3/H and forwarded the same to Inspector Vivek Pathak. The witness also informed ministry of external affairs about arrest of accused Smith and got the sample pulandas sent to FSL through Ct. Satpal. He also recorded statements of taxi driver and owner and went to Indore and seized the entry register of R.K. Lodge and thereafter collected the FSL result vide EX PW10/A. Witness also submitted the charge sheet.
Thereafter prosecution evidence was closed.
18. Statements of accused were recorded u/s 313 Cr. P.C., wherein entire incriminating evidence have been read over and explained to each of them to which they pleaded innocence and false implication.
According to accused Akhil Dass, the notice was served upon him and he asked for his search before the magistrate or gazetted officer but the same was not arranged by the raiding party. He denied that any recovery was effected from him and stated that even he has not been knowing accused Smith and Marina. The proceedings are manipulated. He was lifted alongwith his girl friend Rekha but Rekha was let off, whereas he was implicated in this case. Accused also pleaded that SI Satyawan used to extort money from him since he was previously convicted under NDPS Act and demand of Rs. 5 lakh was raised by SI Satyawan. Due to nonfulfillment S.C.No. 9/10 Page 11 of 23 pages State Vs Chijoke Smith Okpe etc. 12 of the demand, he has been falsely implicated.
According to accused Smith, he was coming from Indore with his girl friend Marina by bus and after crossing the Gurgaon border bus was stopped and they were lifted by police and falsely implicated in this case.
Accused Marina stated that she has been lifted from St. Stephen's hospital where she had come with Smith for check up for her kidney problem. They were not having any contraband. She was forced to sign papers by the police.
All the three accused did not lead any evidence in their defence despite opportunities afforded.
19. I have heard Ld. Addl. P.P. for the State Sh. G.S. Guraya and given due consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case, evidence and the record.
On behalf of accused Akhil Dass, Ld. counsel Sh. Sunil Mehta advanced arguments to some extent but thereafter left arguments in between. The case was then argued by accused Akhil Dass himself. The counsel for accused Smith and Marina did not turn up to argue the matter despite opportunities afforded.
20. It has been contended on behalf of accused Akhil Dass that there is no compliance to the mandatory provisions of NDPS Act like sections 42 and 50 of NDPS Act. Despite insistence to get the search done before the magistrate or gazetted officer, no such arrangement was made by the raiding party and therefore the entire proceedings are vitiated. It is also contended that no independent witness has S.C.No. 9/10 Page 12 of 23 pages State Vs Chijoke Smith Okpe etc. 13 been examined to prove the allegations. SI Satyawan has falsely implicated accused as he used to demand Rs. 5 lakh from him.
21. The accused persons have been prosecuted for having entered into a criminal conspiracy to supply controlled substance and consequently accused Smith and Akhil Dass were found in conscious possession of controlled substance. The notification dated 28.12.1999 is placed on record which has declared ephedrine as controlled substance. The power flows from section 9 of NDPS Act to the Central Government to permit, control and regulate various activities relating to Narcotics Drugs and psychotropic substances and the violation of the same has been made punishable u/s 25A NDPS Act. Since, charge under the Act is serious and stringent punishment is prescribed, the obligation to ensure the safeguards provided under the Act is absolute. It is to be seen whether the mandatory and directory provisions under NDPS Act have been complied with.
22. The apprehension of accused has been on the basis of secret information and accordingly section 42 NDPS Act is applicable. The officer, who received secret information was required to transmit the same immediately to his seniors and also to reduce the same in writing. On examining EX PW3/A DD No. 14 dated 25.05.2010, it is clear that information was specific with respect to Nigerian national, who is accused Chijoke Smith and about her girl friend Marina, to the effect that she would be accompanying him. The information was S.C.No. 9/10 Page 13 of 23 pages State Vs Chijoke Smith Okpe etc. 14 also specific to the effect that both of them would come at the gate of St. Stephen's hospital to supply ephedrine. The information was also transmitted to the seniors as is evident from EX PW3/A and with the testimony of Inspector PW7 Inspector Vivek Pathak and PW11 SI Satyawan. The relevant record has also been proved and accordingly it is established that compliance to section 42 NDPS Act was properly made.
23. The next mandatory and important provision is section 50 NDPS Act. It lays down the conditions about the search of the person, who is suspected for having contraband with him. It is clear with the testimony of prosecution witnesses as well as documents prepared at the relevant time that recovery was effected from the bags carried by accused Smith and Akhil Dass. It is also categorically stated by the members of the raiding party that two bags were brought by accused Chijoke Smith out of which one bag was handed over to accused Akhil Dass. Since, recovery was not effected from the personal search of the accused, section 50 NDPS Act was not applicable. It has been held by Supreme Court that requirement of section 50 NDPS Act applies in case of search from a person and doest not extend to the search of a vehicle or a container or a bag or premises.
Relied upon : (i) Ajmer Singh Vs State of Haryana, 2010 (3) SCC 746; (ii) State of Rajasthan Vs Shanti, AIR 2010 SC 43; (iii) State of Himachal Pradesh Vs Pawan Kumar, 2005 (4) SCC 350; (iv) State of S.C.No. 9/10 Page 14 of 23 pages State Vs Chijoke Smith Okpe etc. 15 Punjab Vs Baldev, 1999 AIR SC 2378.
24. In the present case, since the bags carried by the accused were to be searched, no requirement of section 50 NDPS Act was there. Yet, the notices were served upon each accused. The language and contents of the notices clearly show that provision has been properly and meaningfully complied with and accused persons were explained about their legal and statutory rights in this regard. The notices and the replies given by all accused have been proved on record and there is no reason to disbelieve the same.
25. It has been strenuously argued on behalf of accused Akhil Dass that he had opted for his search before the magistrate or gazetted officer but no such arrangement was made by the raiding party. Ld. counsel for accused also pointed out that contents of the notice show that delivery had not made to him by the time notice was served, whereas the witnesses have stated in their testimony that bag was already handed over to accused Akhil Dass at the time of apprehension. However, I do not find any force in these contentions and therefore do not accept the same. The notice EX PW1/B was served upon accused Akhil Dass clearly detailing the circumstances under which his search was to be S.C.No. 9/10 Page 15 of 23 pages State Vs Chijoke Smith Okpe etc. 16 conducted and he replied the same in his own handwriting. If the reply is read as a whole, it is clear that accused Akhi Dass declined at the relevant time to be searched before a gazetted officer or a magistrate but while writing the notice he failed to clearly write the word "Nahi". However, by the next sentence, accused stated to the raiding party that he was ready for his search by the raiding party. In my opinion, the notice was properly served upon the accused and he opted for refusal at that time but later on changed his stand before this court. It is also contrary to the defence plea of the accused that he was lifted with his girl friend and was falsely implicated as a demand of Rs. 5 lakh was raised from him. The prosecution witnesses have categorically denied in their testimony that accused Akhil Dass opted to be searched before gazetted officer or the magistrate. I find no reason to discard their consistent and confident testimony on this aspect.
26. The statements of prosecution witnesses particularly the members of the raiding party have remained consistent and cogent while putting forth the facts about apprehension of accused and recovery of contraband from them. The documentary proceedings are inconformity with the depositions of witnesses and S.C.No. 9/10 Page 16 of 23 pages State Vs Chijoke Smith Okpe etc. 17 further the record has been brought to prove the compliance of various provisions of NDPS Act such as section 55 and 57, whereby the case property was handed over to SHO for counter sealing and depositing and for forwarding of special reports to the office of ACP. Despite crossexamination no infirmity or material contradictions could be brought about so as to discard the prosecution case. The FSL result duly proved on record EX PW10/A establishes that contraband recovered from the accused was ephedrine (controlled substance).
27. The most important witness SI Satyawan has not been properly crossexamined on behalf of accused despite opportunities afforded. Although, other witnesses have been crossexamined but nothing favorable to the defence could be brought about. No motive could be attributed to the witnesses for deposing falsely. It has been argued that no independent witness joined the proceedings and the testimony of official witnesses has to be discarded as they are interested in the outcome of the case. It is settled legal position that official witnesses cannot be disbelieved merely on the ground of their official status. They can be relied upon if they are found to be consistent and cogent and no corroboration from independent witness is required. It is evident that sincere S.C.No. 9/10 Page 17 of 23 pages State Vs Chijoke Smith Okpe etc. 18 efforts were made to join public witnesses during the proceedings but none came forward. It is not uncommon that public persons are reluctant to join such proceedings particularly in the metropolitan cities. It has been held by Supreme Court in Ajmer Singh Vs State of Haryana, 2010 (2) RCR Crl. 132 that non joining of independent witness is not fatal to the prosecution case particularly when efforts were made by the investigating party to join public witness but none was willing . It was held that accused cannot be acquitted only because no independent witness was produced.
28. The defence pleas taken by all the accused in their statements u/s 313 Cr. P.C. are inconsistent and contradictory. Accused Chijoke Smith and Marina have taken opposite pleas as according to Smith, he and Marina were lifted from a bus at Gurgaon border while they were coming from Indore, whereas according to accused Marina, they were lifted from St. Stephen's hospital where she came for her kidney problem. No document is brought on record even to show that Marina suffered from any kidney problem. PW8 Abdul Rasheed Khan and PW9 Inderjeet Singh have been able to show that accused Chijoke and Marina visited Indore prior to being apprehended in this case and as per secret S.C.No. 9/10 Page 18 of 23 pages State Vs Chijoke Smith Okpe etc. 19 information the contraband was brought from there. Accused Akhil Dass has also pleaded false implication but he too has failed to produce any evidence to prove his innocence. Even, he has not examined his girl friend Rekha with whom allegedly he was apprehended without any reason. Accused also failed to challenge the statement of SI Satyawan and put forth the defence pleas to him about raising demand of Rs. 5 lakhs. SI Satyawan has not been controverted in his evidence despite having opportunity. The conclusion is therefore clear that accused persons have no reasonable and plausible defence to show their innocence.
29. On careful and proper evaluation of the statements of prosecution witnesses with the documentary evidence and record of this case, I find that prosecution has been able to prove that accused Chijoke Smith and Akhil Dass conspired with each other and in pursuance of the same ephedrine, weighing 3.5 kg was delivered to accused Akhil Dass and both were apprehended being in conscious possession of the controlled substance. Although, accused Marina was not found in possession of any incriminating substance but her knowledge of the transaction and complicity with accused Chijoke Smith is clear and apparent. It is not S.C.No. 9/10 Page 19 of 23 pages State Vs Chijoke Smith Okpe etc. 20 disputed that accused Chijoke Smith and Marina have been in affectionate and friendly relationship and they both were together at the time of apprehension. It is evident that both traveled together to Indore and came back to Delhi prior to their apprehension. Accused Marina accompanied Chijoke Smith for the purpose of supply of contraband to third accused Akhil Dass. The secret information have also been specific with respect to the presence of Marina and therefore the factum of her involvement in the present case is implicit.
30. In view of aforesaid observations, I conclude that prosecution has been able to bring home the guilt of all the three accused and all the proceedings are conducted properly with regard to the purport and object of the NDPS Act. On the other hand, accused persons have failed to show their false implication.
31. I accordingly convict accused Chijoke Smith Okpe and Akhil Dass u/s 25A NDPS Act read with section 29 NDPS Act and accused Marina u/s 29 NDPS Act. ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 11th June, 2012.
(ANJU BAJAJ CHANDNA) ASJ/SPECIAL JUDGE NDPS (N) DELHI S.C.No. 9/10 Page 20 of 23 pages State Vs Chijoke Smith Okpe etc. 21 IN THE COURT OF MS. ANJU BAJAJ CHANDNA ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE/SPECIAL JUDGE NDPS (NORTH) DELHI S.C. NO : 9/10 STATE versus
1. Chijoke Smith Okpe, S/o Mr. Okpe, R/o 11, Aka, Onish, Annbera, Nigeria.
2. Akhil Dass, S/o Masih Dass, R/o C556, Gali No12, Adarsh Nagar, Delhi.
3. Marina, D/o Thalinruma, R/o D75, Janak Puri West, Delhi.
FIR No. : 73/10
Offence U/S : 25 A NDPS
Act., 1985 read with
section 29 NDPS Act Police
Station : Narcotics Cell
ORDER ON SENTENCE
03.07.2012
Present. Sh. G.S. Guraya Ld. Addl. P.P. for State.
Counsel Sh. J.S. Kushwaha for convicts Chijoke Smith Okpe and Marina.
Counsel Sh. S.P. Mehta for convict Akhil Dass.
S.C.No. 9/10 Page 21 of 23 pages State Vs Chijoke Smith Okpe etc. 22 All convicts are produced from J.C. Heard on the point of sentence.
It is submitted on behalf of convict Akhil Dass that he is 46 years of age and sole bread winner of his family consisting of his wife and three children, although all the children have attained majority. He is a previous convict under NDPS but for small quantity. Lenient view is prayed for.
It is submitted on behalf of convict Chijoke Smith Okpe that he is 30 years of age, unmarried and belongs to a poor family. He is not a previous convict nor involved in any other case. Lenient view is prayed for.
It is submitted on behalf of convict Marina that she is 24 years of age and unmarried. She is not a previous convict nor involved in any other case. Lenient view is prayed for.
On the other hand, Ld APP prays for imposition of severe punishment as such kind of offences are on the rise in the society.
The convicts Chijoke Smith Okpe and Akhil Dass stand convicted for the offence punishable u/s 25A NDPS Act read with section 29 NDPS Act and accused Marina u/s 29 NDPS Act. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, I sentence convicts Chijoke Smith Okpe and Akhil Dass to rigorous imprisonment for four years each and fine of Rs 20,000/ each in default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for three months.
Keeping in view the young age and clean antecedents S.C.No. 9/10 Page 22 of 23 pages State Vs Chijoke Smith Okpe etc. 23 of convict Marina and also that she is a woman, I am inclined to impose a lesser sentence on her. Therefore, I sentence convict Marina to rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs 10,000/ in default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for one month.
Benefit u/s 428 Cr. P.C. be given to each convict. Copy of the judgment and order on sentence be given to each convict free of cost. File be consigned to record room. ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 3rd July, 2012.
(ANJU BAJAJ CHANDNA)
ASJ/SPECIAL JUDGE NDPS (N)
DELHI
S.C.No. 9/10 Page 23 of 23 pages
State Vs Chijoke Smith Okpe etc.